Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)

Citation
Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
Parent Document
Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
Jurisdiction
Maine (state)
Effective Date
1984-06-04

Other Sections in This Document (67)

Full Text

680 chars
108 Me. at 260, 80 A. at 705. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ contention that forfeiture or expiration of the term is not a prerequisite to maintenance of a forcible entry and de-tainer action is only correct if the legislature, when amending the statute in 1933, intended to relieve the lessor of the obligation of alleging and proving expiration or forfeiture. Such does not appear to be the case. The legislative history surrounding the 1933 amendment gives no indication of an intent to change the statute in such manner. Rather, all that appears to have been intended was the addition of a fourth person against whom a forcible entry and detainer action could be maintained, i.e.,